Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/warclaimsofbordeOOmeye 



War Claims of the Border States. 



SPEECH 



OF 



//■ 



HON. B. F. MEYERS, 



OF PENNSYLVANIA 



DELIVERED IN THE 



UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



APEIL e. 1S72. 



PRINTED AT THE OFFIOE OF THE DAILY PATEIOT, 
llARRISBURy, PA. 



18 7 2. 



11- ^ ?5. "^ 



War Claims of the Border States. 






Mr. Meyers— Mr. Speaker : Dur- 
ing the early part of the present ses- 
sion of congress a bill was introduced 
in the House by the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Eitchie] providing for 
" the ascertainment and examination 
of claims for compensation for the 
use and destruction of private prop- 
erty by the United States army, dur- 
ing the late war for the preservation 
of the Union, in the states not pro- 
claimed in insurrection against the 
United States," and authorizing the 
President, by and with the advice and 
consent of the Senate, to appoint a 
board of commissioners, whose duty 
it shall be to receive, examine and 
consider the justice and validity of 
such claims. 

There can be no doubt as to the pro- 
priety of the passage of this bill. It 
is but the initial measure of that just 
legislation which the people of the ad- 
hering states whose property was de- 
stroyed during the war of the rebel- 
lion, have so long but so vainly ex- 
pected at the hands of congress. 
Though modest in purpose and limited 
in scope, its passage would be regarded 
as an earnest that the federal author- 
ity recognizes and means to discharge 
CO the extent of its power its duty of 
protection to the citizen, as well by in- 
demnity for injuries to ])rivate proper- 
ty resulting from domestic violence 
too powerful to be suppressed by in- 
dividual states, as by compensation 
for such injuries inflicted directly by 
the acts of its own agents. The bill, 
indeed, is not sufficiently comprehen- 
sive. It fails to provide for the ascer- 
tainmpjit of losses sustained by citizens 
of the adhering states through the 



seizure and destruction of property in 
such states by the insurrectionary 
armies. In this respect it should be 
amended. But it will do for a begin- 
ning. It will serve as a pioneer to 
clear the way for measures approach- 
ing more nearly that adequate justice 
sought and expected by those who ask 
its passage. 

While it is true that the citizen 
owes fealty to the government of which 
he is the subject, the converse of tlie 
proposition is equally true, that tlie 
government owes protection to the sub- 
ject. These mutual and reciprocal ob- 
ligations of the governor and the gov- 
erned lie at the foundation of our 
polity. The very object of the forma- 
tion of the federal system was at the 
same time to draw the people of the 
states into a closer union, and to en- 
able and require the general govern- 
ment to defend them against foreign 
aggression and internal disorder. The 
preamble to the constitution declares 
that— 

"We, the people of the United 
States, in order to form a more perfect 
Union, establish justice, insure do 
mestic tranquillity, provide for the 
common defense, promote the general 
welfare, and secure the blessings of 
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, 
do ordain and establish this constitu- 
tion." 

It is plain, therefore, that the gov- 
ernment created by the constitution is 
obliged to maintain domestic tran- 
quillity and provide for the common 
defense; and it logically follows that 
the whole people of all the states are 
equally bound to sustain it in the dis- 
charge of this duty. There can be no 



partiality in the distribution of tjiis 
burden. Tliere can be no in- 
equality as to the responsibility 
of the states or the people in 
this behalf. This rule of impartiality 
and equality to be applied to the 
states and people by the general gov- 
ernment in drawing upon their resour- 
ces for the preservation of domestic 
tranquillity and in providing for the 
common defense is not confined to the 
raising of armies and the levying of 
taxes for their support. It has a 
broader and more comprehensive sig- 
nificance. It certainly embraces losses 
of private property on the part of citi- 
zens faithful to the government, occa- 
sioned by the act of the government or 
by its failure to perform its legitimate 
functions. Such losses are to be borne 
as the expense of raising and support- 
ing armies is borne, by the whole peo- 
ple, not by the few who are forced by 
the fortunes of war temporarily to 
sustain them. 

If the general government, in pro- 
ceeding to quell insurrection in order 
to fulfill its duty of insuring domestic 
tranquillity made obligatory upon it by 
the organic law, should, through its 
civil or military agents, seize the pro- 
perty of A (who is a faithful adherent 
of the government), and convert it to 
its own use or destroy it, is the burden 
of A's loss not to be shared e(iually by 
the remainder of the people who are 
alike interested with Inm in the su- 
premacy of law and the restoration of 
peace V Or, if the general government 
fail to i)rovide for the common de- 
fense, so that tlie public enemy be per- 
mitted to injure or destroy the property 
of A, does not the whole people, of 
whom the government is merely the 
agent or representative, owe him in- 
demnity? If not, then the consti- 
tution is a meaningless instrument, 
and the equality of rights and duties 
.supposed to belong to American citi- 



zenship a figment of the patriotic 
imagination. 

Certainly, no true believer in the 
just principle of equal rights and equal 
responsibilities on the part of each 
and every citizen, which is the basis of 
the republic, will deny that it is the spir- 
it and intent of the organic law that the 
burdens of government shall be borne 
alike by the whole people, and that its 
benefits shall be shared alike by all 
who bear it true allegiance. But con- 
gress has thus far failed to make a 
general application of this equitable 
principle in dealing with the claims 
of citizens for compensation for pri- 
vate property injured or destroyed 
during the recent war by the army of 
the United States and the troops of 
the rebellion. Wliy this delay to do 
justice to those who, notwithstanding 
their fidelity to the cause of the gene- 
ral government, were either delib- 
erately stripped of their property by 
tlie armies which themselves aided in 
raising and supporting, or were obliged 
to submit to pillage by the public 
enemy on account of that govern- 
ment failing to make proper pro- 
vision for the common defense ? Is 
it not high time that these wrongs, 
so patiently and patriotically borne, 
be redressed V It is the trick of 
the deiuiigogue to make ostentatious 
profession of maintaining what he 
is pleased to term "the nation's hon- 
or." It is the fashion among states- 
men to insist, with the unction of a 
scrupulous honesty, upon the payment 
of the public debt to the very last 
cent. The value of private property 
consumed in the tlames of civil war, 
which belonged to citizens faithful in 
tlieir allegiance, is under the equities 
of the constitution, if not by the ex- 
press letter of the law, as much a part 
of the public debt as if it were a l)ond 
of the United States held by the rich- 
est broker in Wall street; and thena- 



tional honor suffers quite as much, in 
the siglit of every just man, from the 
deliberate and wanton disregard of 
this fact by the general government, 
as it ■would from the repudiation of 
the solemnly executed bargains of 
Secretary Boutwell's syndicate. But 
there seems nothing in this to chal- 
lenge the attention of either dema- 
gogue or statesman. 

It may be argued by some that while 
it cannot be disputed that the general 
government is bound, to make good to 
citizens of the adhering states such 
losses of property incurred by them 
during the late war as were caused by 
its direct act it is not responsible in 
any case for damages inflicted by the 
public enemy. Section four of article 
four of the constitution furnishes a 
complete answer to this argument : 

"The United States shall guaranty 
to every state of the union a republi- 
can form of government, and shall 
protect each of them against invasion, 
and on application of the legislature 
or of the executive (when the legis- 
lature cannot be convened) against 
domestic violence." 

The language of the organic law is 
mandatory. It declares that the gen- 
eral government shall protect each 
state against invasion ; and by this 
is meant not merely the prevention of 
incursions of the public enemy upon 
the territory of the states, but the 
safe-keeping of the lives, liberty and 
property of its citizens, Webster thus 
defines the verb "to protect :" "To 
cover from danger or injury; to throw 
a shelter over ; to keep in safety." The 
duty of protecting the states against 
invasion, enjoined upon the general 
government, therefore embraces the 
responsibility of covering from danger 
or injury, sheltering or keeping in 
safety, as well the pioperty as the lives 
and liberty of the citizens of the 
states. If, then, a state is invaded. 



the constitution presumes the prop- 
erty of its citizens to be in the safe- 
keeping of the general government, 
which is bound by the very terms of 
its existence to cover it from danger 
or injury; and which, being thus made 
the trustee for the citizens of the 
state, is responsible to them for the 
value of the property so entrusted to 
its protection. 

If the provision of the constitution 
just quoted contemplated nothing be- 
yond the prevention of a hostile army 
from entering the territory of a state, 
it would be of little value ; for when- 
ever our country becomes the theatre 
of war the soil of some of the states 
must of necessity be invaded. Hence 
that provision must be given a broader 
interpretation. It must mean that 
the general government is responsible 
for the expulsion of the invader and 
the injuries sustained by the citizens 
of the state from the invasion. 

But, conceding for the sake of the ar- 
gument, that the United States are not 
bound by the terms of the constitution 
to make compensation to citizens for 
losses of property incurred by theivi at 
the hands of the public enemy, it does 
not follow that congress may not per- 
form an act of justice toward the peo- 
ple who have suffered on account of 
the inability of the general govern- 
ment to protect them in the enjoyment 
of the rights guaranteed them in the 
organic law. It is doubtless good poli- 
cy for the state, as well as for individ- 
uals, to ol)serve the maxim which 
teaches us to be j ust before we are 
generous, but the opposite doctrine 
seems to prevail in federal legislation. 

Subsidies of millions of dollars to 
private corporations receive approv- 
ing votes, hundreds of millions of 
acres of the public domain are bestowed 
upon railroad companies, and the ne- 
gotiation of government loans is made 
to pour the wealth of Crcesus into 



the laps of favorites. The people for 
whom I have the houor to speak claim 
no such largess. They seek no gifts. 
They ask no alms. They simply de- 
mand justice, ^[ay it not be reasona- 
bly expected that a government so 
generous to those to whom it owes 
nothing will not disregard the petition 
of those to whom it is greatly indebted? 
For, truly, the people whose cause I 
am attempting to advocate, suffered 
mucli for the sake of the republic. 
They are tlie men of the border— those 
men who during the war of the rebell- 
ion were the living rampart of the 
states which adhered to the general 
government. They are the men whose 
mountain farms were the fortresses of 
M'Clellan and Meade, whose homes 
were given to the flames by the torch 
of M'Causland, and whose flelds are 
historic in the world-renowned names 
of Antietam and Gettysburg. 

Many of them were soldiers of the 
United States army, faithfully dis- 
charging their duty, while the govern- 
ment for whose preservation they 
faced the cannon's mouth, seized and 
used or destroyed their property, or 
failed to dafend it against pillage and 
destruction by the public enemy. The 
widow and the orphan of the lieroic 
dead who fell in defense of the Union 
are numbered among those whose 
property was made a part of the au- 
gust sacrihce for the preservation of 
tlie republic, and aged and infirm pa- 
rents, whose sons sleep in nameless 
graves on distant battle fields, are on 
the same roll of unfortunates. It can- 
not be that the just expectation of 
these sufferers in the cause of the 
union will be disappointed by indiffer- 
ence and neglect on the part of 
the representatives of the peo- 
ple. It is scarcely to be feared that 
the proverbial ingratitude of republics 
is to be so sharply illustrated, so pe- 
culiarly signali'/ed. 



Objection will doubtless be made 
upon the ground that a large exi)ense 
will be entailed on the government if 
the claims in question be allowed by 
congress. I am not advised as to the 
sum which would be required for their 
satisfaction. Until the bill introduced 
by the gentleman from Maryland, or 
some measure of a like character, be- 
comes a law, the amount cannot be ob- 
tained with exactness. The claims of 
citizens of my own state, for losses of 
the character descril)ed, will not ex- 
ceed $3,000,000. Those of citizens of 
Maryland will hardly reach that sura. 
I venture to say that $10,000,000 will 
cover the entire amount of claims for 
losses sustained in the adhering states 
during the war of the rebellion 
through the injury and destruction of 
private property by the troops of botli 
armies. Were it twice or thrice that 
sum the government can pay it with- 
out the slightest embarrassment. In- 
deed, I am persuaded that the admin- 
istration of public affairs with a pro- 
per regard to economy would reduce 
the present expenditures of the gov- 
ernment to such an extent that these 
claims might be paid in a single year, 
and the burden of the taxpayers made 
lighter than it was during the last fis- 
cal year. It will not be out of place 
here to attempt the proof of this. 

The expenditures of the general gov- 
ernment for the fiscal year ended June 
30, 1871, were, as shown by the report 
of the secretary of the treasury; 
For civil and miscellaneous pur- 
poses Si9,498,710 07 

For the war departmeut 44,080,084 95 

For the navy department 19,431,027 21 

For Indians. 7,426,997 4! 

Total exDendltures, not Includ- 
ing pensions and payments on 
interest and principal of public 
debt 1140,43(5,8:0 57 

Compare with this exhibit the expen- 
ditures of the general government for 



the fiscal year ended June 30, 1860, as 
stated in the report of the secretary of 
the treasury for that year : 

For civil, and miscellaneous pur- 
poses $28,105,174 83 

For the war department 16,409,767 10 

For the nayj' department 11,513.150 19 

For Indians 2,727,655 23 



Total expenditures, uotmcludiug 
pensions and pa yments on in- 
terest and principal of the pub- 
lic debt »5S 7P5.747 40 

Here is shown an increase of the sura 
total of the ordinary expenses of the 
government for the fiscal year ended 
June 30, 1871, over tlmt of the same 
for tlie fiscal year ended June. 30, 1800, 
of .$81,081,073.10. The cost of main- 
taining the war department is now al- 
most tliree times as much as it was in 
1800. The same proportion holds good 
as to the Indian department, wliile 
the payments for the civil service and 
miscellaneous purposes are two and a 
half times ay great as they were in 
1860, and the expenses of tlie navy de- 
partment almost double what they 
were then. It is but necessary to know 
tliat the army of the United States at 
present numbers twice as many men 
as in 1860 to understand wliy the ex- 
penses of the war department are 
$28,000,000 greater per annum now 
than they were eleven years ago. But 
the most adroit apologist for the pres- 
ence of a Urge standing army in the 
midst of a free people cannot invent a 
good reason why the government 
should at this time be provided with a 
military force of 30,000 men since 
15,000 formerly performed all the ser- 
vice which can now be legitimately re- 
quired of the army. 

The present is a time of profound 
ppace. Domestic violence has ceased; 
the attitude of foreign powers toward 
our country is entirely pacific; and 
"Lo! the poor Indian"' r-mokes his 
calumet tilled with the kiniukinnick 



of tranquillity. The battle flags are 
furled, and the bloody occupation of 
the military arm of the government is 
gone— let us hope forever. The num- 
ber of forts to be garrisoned, the ex- 
tent of frontier to be guarded, the 
work to be done by the army in every 
respect, is not greater now than in 
1860. Ah! I had forgotten. The pres- 
ent federal executive has necessities 
and perplexities which were unknown 
to his predecessors in office. The 
sword alone can cut the way for him 
through the wilderness of difficulfeies 
which surrounds his candidacy for 
re-election. Party conventions must 
feel the persuasive power of fix- 
ed bayonets: federal troops must 
parade the streets of New York, Tliil- 
adelphia and other large cities on 
'election day; and a brilliant military 
I campaign must be made in all the 
I southern states under the sacred ban- 
I ner of the carpet bag. Herein is found 
j the only reason for keeping up a stand. 
I iiig army of 30,000 men at a cost of 
i $44,000,000 per annum. It is not cer- 
tain, but perhaps possible, that if a 
new and indefinite lease of power were 
assured the administration, a reduc- 
tion of tlie number of troops would be 
made whicli would save the govern- 
ment some |iL'0,000,000 annually, and 
thus enable it the more easily to pay 
some of its honest debts. 

Why is the expense of maintaining 
the navy so enormous; or why, indeed, 
are there any appropriations at all for 
that department V We have no navy. 
It is as much a myth as old Neptune 
himself. Our few ships of war, well 
as they are manned and officered, do 
not constitute a navy. Why then 
does this department cost us $8,000,- 
000 per annum more than in 1860? 
Since the country pays for a proper 
naval establishment, the government 
ought to give it such an establish- 
ment or cease to tax the people in that 



l)ehalf, and devote its surplus cash to 
additional payments of its honest 
debts. 

Why has the expense of the Indian 
department been tripled since 1860 ? 
Are we not told tliat the present ad- 
ministration lias treated the Indian 
(luestion with splendid success; nay, 
was not the last tomaliawk buried in 
the grave of the shiin Piegan women V 
Have we not had the gentle suasion 
of General Parker and Vincent Colyer 
winning the savage nature to the prac- 
tices of civilization and the arts of 
peace V It must be that under the 
lienignant influences of the iiresent 
administration the aboriginal race has 
greatly increased in numbers, and 
lience the heavy expense of the bu- 
reau which has charge of its affairs. 
Statisticians say otherwise, but they 
are doubtless at fault. Be that as it 
may, 1 concUide that it is quite prob- 
able that, with a proper manage- 
ment of that bureau, several mill- 
ion dollars could be saved annually, 
which the government might apply in 
ftntlier payment of its honest debts. 

Wliy are the expenses on account of 
the civil list and miscellaneous pur- 
poses $41,(W0,(K)0 greater per an- 
num than they were eleven years 
ago y The machinery of tlie govern- 
ment paid for under tliese heads is the 
same now as it was then, with the ex- 
ception of the internal revenue depart- 
ment, which cost for the last fiscal 
year S9,000,(HX). Deduct the expenbes 
of that department from the $41,000,- 
000 of increase on account of the 
civil list and miscellaneous pur- 
poses, and there still remain to 
be accounted for i>i32,000,000 per 
anniun. How is this enormous aug- 
mentation of expenditures under these ' 
heads to be explained? Is any expla- j 
nation [(osiubleV Does it not betoken i 
wastefulness, extravagance, or some- [ 
thing worse in the management of the ' 



bureaus which heap this monstrous 
expense upon the shoulders of the 
people? It is not to be doubted that 
at least $25,000 000 could be safely 
lopped off from the present annual 
exi)enditures of those bureaus and 
paid over to anxious creditors of the 
government. 

From this showing it is plain that, 
alloAving fur the increase of expendi- 
tures on account of the internal rev- 
nue department, and I may add the 
clerical force now employed in the 
pension bureau and other offices hav- 
ing charge of the settlement and pay- 
ment of claims arising from the late 
war, at least $70,000,000 of the public 
moneys might be saved each year by a 
judicious and frugal administration of 
tiie government. Under such an admin- 
istration the taxes of the people would 
be at least $50,000,000 less during the 
year in which the claims for losses of 
property by the war of which 1 have 
spoken would be paid than they are at 
present, while payments of pensions 
and the principal and interest of the 
public debt would not be diminished. 

It is clear, then, that econmuy in 
the public expenditures ought to begin 
elsewhere tlian in a denial of tlie 
rights of citizens having just claims 
against the government. A refusal to 
settle and satisfy such claims is as un- 
necessary in a sound and enlightened 
policy as repudiation of the funded 
debt. Honesty is the best policy as 
well for the state as for individuals. 
If the claims which are to be examined 
under the provisions of the bill 
presented by the gentleman from 
Maryland, amended as I have suggest- 
ed it should be, are just, there ought 
to be no hesitation about their payment 
by the government on the ground of 
economy. Reduce the army, calk tlie 
leaks in the navy, curtail the profits 
in Indian contracts, and siiut down 
that floodgate of the freasury, known 
as "miscellaneous purposes," l)ut Iff 
it not be said that a government wiiic^i 
lias shown that it can afford to be gen- 
erous, refuses to be just to those wlio 
suffered that it might be preserved. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




013 701 751 9 



